■

O

;go) I

H Q 1

Li. -y 1

CO , 1

z —

3

THE ESSENTIALS OF
SPIRITUAL UNITY

BY

RONALD KNOX

LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD

LONDON

CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY

69 Southwark Bridge Road, S.E. i
19.8

MAR

9S8

THE ESSENTIALS OF
SPIRITUAL UNITY

PREFACE

WHEN I began to be anxious about my position
as an Anglican, I felt that I had no right to
plunge into Catholicism (although I then held most
of its doctrines) without going back over old ground,
and satisfying myself that I had not unduly neglected
the claims of other denominations to a hearing. Among
other experiments in this direction, I began to write
down some account of what I meant by " a Church."
A Church I was determined to have, but it seemed to
me it might clear my mind if I started with the bare
idea and definition of a Church, and followed out the
implications of that idea, wherever (as Plato says) the
argument should lead.

My method was not that of Plato, but that of
Aristotle, at least in his Ethics. For Plato knows
what he thinks beforehand, and his dialogue form is a
literary artifice, but Aristotle seems (at any rate) to set
out on no other basis than that of generally received
ideas — What do we mean by " good " ? What do we
mean by " deliberate " ? and so on — and by whittling
away the rival explanations that will not do, arrives
in the end at the definition he wants. This nice
slovenly method I adopted. When I found myself

2 THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

(as usual) " up against " the Catholic system, I ex-
changed this experimentalist for an a priori method,
and began asking : If such and such a system of
religious organization is the only tolerable kind of
Church, how would such a Church (supposing it to
exist) be likely to appear in the records of history ?
How much should we expect historical and geographi-
cal accidents to obscure, at first sight, the principles
on which it was based ?

The first part was begun as early as August, 1915,
but the work went on slowly and casually, as the mood
took me, and the last part was never really finished —
the last page or two I actually wrote in September,
1917, just before I was received. I have let it stand as
I wrote it, except for half a dozen incidental corrections
which were suggested to me. I do not pretend that
it is the way in which one ought to arrive at the idea
of the Catholic Church ; it is merely the way in which
one soul did.

R. A. Knox.

January, 191 8.

THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

i. The Church a selection, and one made by an agent from
without.

The name ecclesia seems to postulate two points :
first, that the body it denotes should be separated, i.e.
there should be at least the human possibility of some
people being outside it ; second, that it is called, that
is, defined from without, not self-appointed or self-
determined, like a club or a republic.

2. And the principle of selection must be based on some
qualities in those selected.

It is thus, in potency at any rate, exclusive. And
since in an institution whose essence is concerned with
matters of ultimate moment we could hardly expect
the selection to be arbitrary, like that of a club, we
must suppose the exclusion to be due either to the
unfitness of certain people for membership on the
ground of morals or belief, or else to the wilful refusal
of certain people to join the institution, which would
be, viewed from inside, the repelling of those who
showed no aptitude for membership. Such unclub-
ableness would be hardly human if the refusal did not
base itself upon some tangible objection, an objection
to certain qualifications which had been set up as tests
for membership.

3. God selects, in the true sense, but this does not mean
that man cannot know who have and who have not been
selected.

It would be well to know at once who is the agent
who calls out, and in what sense he does it. No form

4 THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

of Christianity would dispute that this agent is God :
the difference would be that the Calvinist tendency,
in so far as it is present in any view of the Church,
makes the selection arbitrary (from our point of view),
and based on pre-natal choice on God's part. But
even supposing this to be true, the Church as a visible
institution must have, if not merits by which its
members are to be selected, at least marks by which
they are to be recognized ; and all Calvinist schools
demand an immediate faith in salvation by atone-
ment, most of them also a standard of practice con-
sistent with such beliefs. On the other side, no
Christian would claim that his embracing his creed
was a matter purely of choice on his own part.

4. At least so far as a visible Church is concerned : there
may also be uncovenanted mercies, with which we are not
concerned.

In so far as God calls us, and presumably foreknows
us, there is no inherent reason why we should expect
to be able to say, This or That man has been called
of God — so long as he knows his own sheep by name,
all is well with their salvation. But if the Church is
to be a visible institution, guarding common mysteries
in its trust, or at the lowest binding people together
in conscious fellowship, there must be marks by which
they can be recognized. And here, it is almost uni-
versally admitted, we can take heart over the case of
those who do not qualify for visible membership, yet
puzzle us by the fact of their exclusion. God may have
called them, but called them by special and uncove-
nanted paths ; it is no business of ours on the one
side to emulate, or on the other side to despair of
them.

THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY 5

5. Underlying causes of non- membership must be : (a)
some moral weakness, (/?) some distortion of moral standards,
or (7) some defect of speculative belief.

The actual formula which carries with it member-
ship of the Church is not the explanation of anybody's
inclusion or rejection ; it is merely (if non-miraculous)
the mark, or (if miraculous) the means of it. The
explanation must lie in some determination of the
man's own mind which is inconsistent with the terms
of admission. Since there are to be no arbitrary or
accidental qualifications, other than that the applicant
should be a rational human being, the grounds of
exclusion limit themselves to three.

(1) He may, though in theory prepared to accept
the moral standards upheld by the society, fall so far
short of them in practice, through akrateia, that the
authorities judge him unfit.

(2) He may, through moral akolasia, or again
through want of sympathy with particular determina-
tions in detail of the moral code, be clearly incapable
of entering into the spirit of the institution.

Or (3) There may be beliefs held by the society
which he cannot admit, or vice versa. Some, no
doubt, would prefer to see this last, doctrinal test
abolished altogether, or at least reduced to a minimum.
But in any case it must be reckoned with as a possi-
bility.

Note. — It might seem that there was a fourth
possibility of disqualification, a disciplinary disquali-
fication. The man might do and believe all that the
members did and believed, yet refuse to put himself
within a circle of like-minded people. But this, it will
be easily seen, resolves itself either into a doctrinal or

6 THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

into a moral disqualification. Either he does not wish
his own moral standards to be of universal applica-
tion, in which case his practice is not in fact morally
determined, but due to taste, preference, etc. ; or else,
admitting he believes the doctrines, he does not
believe in the doctrines being vital, and in this absence
of belief in his beliefs he is at variance with the
members of the body.

6. The argument for (a) as the only obstacle appears
logical, satisfying to moral instincts, Biblical, and traditional.

It might seem at first sight that (i) was, if not of
sole, at least of primary importance. For all sects
agree that, whatever else is significant, moral action,
which means precisely living up to the best standard
a man knows, is of the very first importance. The
Church would thus be a society of people united in the
effort after individual perfection, and a man would be
a member of it if and in so far as he achieved the
standards required of him. This would seem to agree
well with Saint Paul's language, when he refers to the
members of the Christian community as saints, and
insists upon charity, etc., as the true test of Christian
character. It would also answer to our Saviour's
own test, " By their fruits ye shall know them." If
a man can be pronounced good he must, ipso facto,
be pronounced a member of the Church, and qualified
as the recipient of all its graces. Pressed to its furthest
lengths, this argument would claim that all beliefs
are a matter of individual conviction, and, precisely
because they cannot conscientiously be abandoned or
even suppressed to suit the convenience of others,
they are not suited to form a test of admission. Pressed

THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY 7

even further, it seems we should have to claim that
differences of moral standard must meet with equal
respect, provided they were not definitely under-
developed, or demonstrably calculated to militate
against the happiness of mankind in general or the
society in particular.

And indeed, it is often supposed that the first con-
cern of the Apostles was to keep the Church holy,
rather than to keep it orthodox or uniform. The
weapon of excommunication seems to have been used
at first hesitatingly and with reluctance : the heresies
Saint Paul combats might be said to have been con-
demned rather for their anti-social tendency, as
putting a barrier between Christian and Christian,
than for their false speculative views. Whereas the
moral discipline of the Church seems to have been at
its most severe in the early centuries : apostasy and
adultery, certainly, were viewed so gravely that the
author of them was, if not technically deprived of
Church membership, at least debarred for life from
the exercise of Church privileges. Logically, then,
this principle can claim that in rejecting a candidate
for membership, you are basing your action on a clear
delivery of the conscience, a moral imperative, not on
any point of dogma, not on any speculative question
about which, after all, you may be wrong and he right.
Sentimentally (to use the term in no unkind sense) it
enables you to avoid the feeling that you are rejecting
one who is in point of conduct just as good as yourself.
Biblically, it corresponds with the emphasis laid on
moral purity by our Saviour and his disciples. Histori-
cally, it seems to have much in common with what
we know of the practice of the earliest centuries.

8 THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

7. Until it is examined closely. Are we to admit people
who live up to any standard, provided they do live up to it ?

Preliminary objection to this view. It is clear,
however, that there is a point at which it becomes
rather difficult to draw the line between difference of
moral standard and incompatibility of moral practice.
The good Mussulman will have — or at least contem-
plate having — more than one wife ; the good Hindu
widow would till lately go further, and conceive it a
moral duty to defy Christian standards in immolating
herself over her husband's pyre ; the Japanese, highly
civilized in other ways, will commit suicide in grief at
the death of their Mikado with the applause of their
fellow-countrymen. It is true we describe these
standards of morality as lower standards of morality ;
but are we sure we are not begging the question ?
They are at least positive standards, and they do
clearly evoke a certain spirit of admiration in us, who
have been otherwise educated. Would it be possible
to have a Christian society in which two different
Christians would conceive their duty, in the same
given conditions, in diametrically opposite ways ? Or,
at least, would base their outlook on different views
of the importance of human life, and the relative value
of the two sexes ? All this clearly suggests that the
moral demands of a religious society are that its
members should not merely live up, as far as possible,
each to his own standard, but should own to some
extent at least common standards. And the recog-
nition of common standards in morality brings us
suspiciously close to dogma.

To put the case in a more concrete and probable
form : it seems doubtful if those Friends who are true
to the spirit of their institute could fail to regard the

THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY 9

bearing of arms against an enemy as anything but a
total disqualification for membership. Yet there are
Friends who have, in the present crisis, conceived it
as not merely allowable but their positive and un-
avoidable duty to bear arms in this way. Each side
is acting according to conscience, and it is very possible
that some agreement will later be arrived at ; but the
agreement will mean the abandonment of one of the
most cardinal principles of Quaker history, or at least
its relegation from the sphere of moral duty to that of
private conscience. In a divine Society, are such
divergences tolerable ? (In other denominations, the
same difficulty does not arise, for though individuals
or classes may feel debarred from fighting, they have
no historical traditions against its legitimacy.)

8. Further, have we a right to judge motives ? Can we
be sure of distinguishing the penitent from the hypocrite ?
Discipline may be used in these cases, but exclusion is,
precisely here, inappropriate.

But indeed there is a root difficulty, far more serious.
We immediately become confronted with the problem
of the moral struggle : "I find another law in my
members," etc. It is quite certain that the Christian
society exists to achieve the individual moral (and
spiritual) perfection of its members, but is it certain
that this end is best served by debarring the sinner in
toto from communion ? Is it not rather to be antici-
pated that the sinner will find means to triumph over
his sins through membership, rather than by the fact
of exclusion, which may easily induce despair or defi-
ance in his attitude towards the body ? Who is to
distinguish between the case of the hypocrite who
continually sins and continually feigns penitence, and

IO THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

that of the recidivus who constantly falls, yet disowns,
and to some extent atones for his faults by genuine
contrition ? Is not he at least in a better position than
the hypocrite who retains his membership by dint of
not being found out, by secret sins and insincere con-
fessions ? Does not the example of the Friend of
publicans and sinners rather suggest, that while
demanding a penitent will on the part of the applicant
for membership, we shall yet be indulgent to the sins
against which he struggles, but not always success-
fully ? In a word, is not the whole question of motives
in action, and responsibility in moral cases, too com-
plicated to decide by hard and fast rules of exclusion ?

9. And the tendency to deal with the recidivus by kindness
appears to be progressive.

Rightly or wrongly, this would appear to have been
increasingly the practice of the Church, and under
the influence of the Roman hierarch. So it was a
Pope who stood out for the rights of the lapsed in the
persecutions, and Pius X laid it down that Communion
is too valuable a preventive against sin to allow of our
dissuading the weaker brethren from its frequent
reception. Whatever penances have been imposed,
total exclusion has come to be reserved for those who
are manifestly impenitent, since they will not abandon
the sources of temptation ; the harlot will not give up
her means of livelihood : the man who has contracted
an incestuous marriage will not live apart from his
wife, and so on. In a word, exclusion is held to be
justifiable only when immorality takes the form of
moral obliquity, and the applicant for membership
not merely fails to amend, but fails to admit even in
theory the Christian standard of morals. We are

THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY II

thus forced back again from Class (i) of possible ob-
stacles to communion, to Class (2).

io. We fall back then on the set of obstacles marked (/3).
But we find that (/3), quite as much as (7), excludes people
from the Church on the ground of their conscientious
convictions.

The difficulty then arises, whether Class (2) has any
existence independently of Class (3). Or, to put it
differently, whether for our purposes the two varieties
of possible obstacles might not have been classed
under the same head. For, as soon as you begin to
talk of moral standards, moral values, or moral codes,
you have passed out of the region of practice into that
of theory. True, the theory affects the question " How
am I to live ? " but it is a theory for all that, because it
is universal in its application. It might be said that
it is at least not a matter of mere intellectual theory,
for we speak of apprehending moral values, rather than
making moral judgements ; but this is beside the point
in matters of religious discussion, for spiritual truth,
like moral truth (if the term may be used), is a matter
of values. All this does not affect the fact that a man
may repudiate monogamy as he repudiates mono-
theism, as a matter of conviction, and complain, in the
one case as in the other, that the Christian society is
excluding him by reason of a conviction which he
cannot help holding, because it alone satisfies his
moral consciousness.

iz. Resumption of preceding paragraphs.

It seems, then, that the Church, being a selection
from among mankind, not an arbitrary selection, nor
a hereditary selection (like the Church of Israel which

12 THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

it superseded), nor yet simply an assembly of good
people (for motives, the tares in the wheat of the
kingdom, are hard to disentangle, and good and bad
must grow side by side till the harvest) must be
selected, so far at least as it is a visible Church, on a
principle of qualification which involves a common
speculative outlook : it still remains for discussion, of
course, whether this outlook need be only in the
sphere of moral theology, i.e. in matters which affect
actual conduct, or in purely speculative and devotional
matters as well.

12. A body, which is human in its institution and in the
promises which it offers, can include or exclude as it likes,
because it is responsible only to itself.

In so far as any " church " or religious denomination
is, as such, of purely human formation, the responsi-
bility of deciding who is to be accepted and who re-
jected is almost intolerable — would be quite intolerable,
but that such a society does not (or should not) profess
to be the One Church of Christ ; and therefore can, like
any club or association, direct the disappointed appli-
cant to some other society which is more likely to be
in sympathy with his aspirations. But in so far as a
church feels itself to be the One Church, and the
guardian of certain divine privileges which, normally
at least, can be obtained through no other means — to
that extent, we must suppose, its authorities will be
reluctant to disappoint any candidate, unless his
disqualifications are such as have been declared by
a supernatural authority to be necessary disqualifica-
tions. The sense of responsibility naturally operates in
both directions : a society conscious that it is in the
position, not of a plenipotentiary, but of a trustee,

THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY 13

should be more careful as to whom it admits, not
merely as to whom it rejects. Thus, undoubtedly,
those religious bodies (the Congregationalists, for ex-
ample) which claim no special divine charter, but
merely the status of cultural associations, feel far
more liberty in refusing or in accepting candidates for
membership than, for example, the Church of Rome.

13. Is it possible that exclusion from the Church should
rest on practical considerations — considerations, that is, of
the exigencies of any society which is to have a corporate
life?

We have, then, to consider the suggestion that re-
ligious tests should be insisted upon only where the
failure to accept them would mean the failure to accept
a common standard of behaviour necessary to the life
and coherence of the religious body in question. Thus,
the mere confusion which would be introduced into
the social life of a monogamous society by the admis-
sion of a person with four wives might be held suffi-
cient reason for refusing membership, without going
into the question of ultimate sanctions. Or, again,
complete incompatibility of outlook might be pleaded
as a bar, if a professional soldier desired, without
abandoning his profession, to be enrolled among the
Society of Friends.

14. These considerations may be cultual as well as
merely moral.

More than this, there may be cultual incompatibility
which is not moral incompatibility. Thus, in a re-
ligious body whose members laid stress on " the
gathering of themselves together " a man conscien-

14 THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

tiously convinced that all prayer was waste of time,
who would consequently refuse to take any part in
public worship, would clearly be out of place. Simi-
larly, an observer of the Jewish Sabbath who refused
to take any notice of Sunday might be rejected by a
body interested in Sunday observance.

15. Answer to § 13:] Yes, if the body be of human origin
and value. No, if it be of divine. For a divine Society is too
important a thing to be regulated by considerations of its
own convenience.

But these purely moral and cultual considerations
can be used as a basis of exclusion only if and in so far
as the body in question does not profess to be of
uniquely divine institution, and the sole true repre-
sentative of fully-revealed religion. For their bear-
ing, so far as we have hitherto considered it, is social
only ; and if the spiritual privileges forfeited by
exclusion from the body are considerable, it becomes
a question whether issues of social convenience should
be allowed to weigh ; ought not the weaker brother,
for all his four wives and his refusal to attend church,
be admitted to membership, if only as a weaker
brother ? It appears that he should, unless the

TABOOS WHICH EXCLUDE HIM ARE OF AN ORIGIN AND
A CERTAINTY NO LESS DIVINE THAN THE PRIVILEGES
FROM WHICH EXCLUSION DEBARS HIM. In a Word,

a society of human foundation, guarding human privi-
leges— a Benevolent Society, for example — is at
liberty to reject applicants on grounds which claim no
more than the sanction of human instinct or human
theory — such a Society may, for example, exclude all
except total abstainers. But a Society which claims
to be of divine foundation, and to be the trustee of

THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY 1 5

divine privileges, can exclude only where it has a
divine sanction for excluding.

1 6. Instance of the difficulty here raised — the sanction^of
Sabbatarianism in the Church of England.

Thus even moral and cultual considerations can be
vitusidered a bar in the absolute sense only when their
validity is guaranteed by the divine voice. The
observance of Sunday in the Church of England is an
interesting case in point. If the Church of England
appeals only to Scripture, it is doubtful whether the
observance of the first day in the week can be justified.
If it appeals to the practice of the Church in former
times, that is a different matter. But for a frank
Erastian it seems it would be possible never to go to
church on Sunday at all : he might regard the day
as of purely conventional significance, set apart only
by the action of the State, to the views of which he is
not bound to conform ; or, at best, by a consensus
of ecclesiastical officials, whose injunctions, as being
^uman injunctions, he may safely disregard.

17. A crucial instance resumed; why do Christian sects
insist on monogamy ? Not on any purely ethical ground, for
such ground is lacking.

Let us take monogamy as a case in point. On what
ground is a Church which claims divine institution to
deny access to her privileges to the bigamist ? It is
very hard to say that the principle is part of the com-
mon delivery of the conscience of mankind ; the
Mahomedans sanction other practices, so did the
ancient Jews — communities where we find clear
recognition of the intimate tie between morality and
religion. We cannot even appeal here to the equivocal

B

16 THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

term " progress M : for in America monogamy now-
adays seems to mean little more than the limitations
imposed by Mark Twain on his pipe-smoking. The
Utilitarian test, always doubtful in this connexion,
breaks down absolutely in face of a great war that
stamps out a large part of the male population. We
might say that in Europe it has become part of the
recognized principles of society, and could not there-
fore be abrogated without infinite confusions ; but
even this return to the practical appeal would be
nugatory in those African countries where society at
large tolerates the principle of the harem, and those
who desire to become Christians find great social diffi-
culties in consequence. We must have a divine utter-
ance to support us if we are to incur the odium of
insisting on this particular taboo.

1 8. In this case, it appears, we are bound to invoke a super-
natural authority: and if we have once invoked it, we are
henceforward its servants, wherever it chooses to lead us.

That is to say, we must invoke an authority. And
in doing so, we must see clearly what we are doing.
In order to plead an authority here, we are submitting
to the dictation of our authority (whatever it. may be)
on all subjects on which it may choose to dictate — not
merely on all matters on which we find it convenient
to appeal to it, for this is clearly destructive of the
very essence of authority. It must be such that we
cannot say " I do not agree with it here " — for, if not,
our friend with the four wives will ask us to take no
notice of it in his case either. In emancipating our-
selves from the indecisive rule of King Log — practi-
cal convenience, etc. — we are electing King Stork. In
appealing to the bramble for a ruling, we are making

THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY 17

it king of all the trees, — not for this or that occasion,
over this or that issue, but at all times and everywhere
alike : with it, not with us, rests the decision as to
how far it will carry us.

19. Three possible groundworks of qualificatory beliefs;
reducing themselves to two: (1) A written contract, (2) a
living voice.

It does not appear that any religious system has
ever appealed to an authority which was not expressed
in one of three ways :

(1) By supernatural illumination accorded to in-
dividuals, generally in moments of prophetic exalta-
tion.

(2) By the written word, which is really a variant
of (1), since it implies illumination granted to an
individual (or set of individuals) the content of which
has been committed to paper. In some systems the
revelation once given is closed for all time ; in others,
it is capable of being supplemented by fresh illumina-
tion accorded later.

(3) By certain powers of inerrant judgement vested
in an individual or set of individuals and guaranteed to
operate only when such and such conditions are
unfilled. It seems clear that any such succession of
individuals demands some process of co-optation, in
order to insure that the empowered officials C and D
are the legitimate successors of A and B.

Reduced to this logical absurdity, principle (i) would
mean simply " one man one church." The people who
quote the text " All thy people shall be taught of
God " do not make this claim, but it is doubtful if they

l8 THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

ought not to. If, contrary to Saint Paul's assumption,
all were Apostles and all Prophets, a Church like that
at Corinth might divide itself, not simply into followers
of Paul and followers of Cephas, but into a number of
sects equal to the number of those who had been
members of the Church : each regarding the illumina-
tions accorded to himself as of paramount authority,
and excommunicating the rest if and in so far as they
disagreed with himself. We might have supposed, of
course, that a miraculous consensus of opinion would be
granted to all who earnestly ask the guidance of the
Holy Spirit, without further ado ; but the history of
Christendom does not fortify us in this opinion.

As a matter of fact, private inspirations are more
usually claimed by a large number of people for some
one person of special spiritual gifts ; if the content
of this revelation is sufficiently startling to make the
disciples disown, or be disowned by, the religious
body from which they started, the new inspiration,
in passing into an institution, necessarily comes to
base itself either on the principle of the Bible or on
that of the Church. Either the original founder's
words are carefully treasured in writing, and, while
susceptible of expansion or of interpretation, are not
considered susceptible of alteration or correction ; or
else a succession of prophets has somehow to be
guaranteed, mediating a succession of divine illumina-
tions adequate to any emergency that may arise. We
can, in fact, have no quarrel with private inspirations
as such — they have been granted to St. Gertrude,
St. Teresa, Blessed Margaret Mary, etc. — they do
not in reality form a distinct basis of authority
until they become the foundations either of a new
Bible or of a new Church. Thus we can neglect the

THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY 19

first of our three headings ; and say that only a Bible
or a Church, or some compromise between, or com-
bination of the two, can give us the authority which
we find necessary to the delimitation of a visible
Church.

20. Whether a priori or on grounds of experience, it is
difficult not to suppose that a religious body, however much
it professes to be purely Biblical in its standards, must fall
back on some kind of living authority, if only for inter-
pretation.

The difficulty would naturally occur to us, even if
we had no history for our guide — What is to happen
in the case of a religious body avowing a Book as its
sole source of religious authority, if two sections of
thought should disagree as to the way in which this
or that document should be interpreted ? The only
solution of such a problem seems to be, to go to law
before the unbelievers, and appeal to a purely common-
sense tribunal to decide whether faction A or faction
B is truer to the letter of the title-deeds. But, al-
though this may be a necessary step where temporal-
ities are concerned in the dispute, it is obviously an
expedient to which any religious body would have
recourse only with the greatest reluctance, as in the
case of the U-Free and Wee-Free controversy. For, if
there is any meaning in Saint Paul's contrasts between
the letter and the spirit, if there is any truth in his
contention that the spiritual man has the sole right
of interpreting spiritual things, then it is clear that the
value of such an appeal is purely a matter of con-
venience. No, if there is to be any uniform standard
of belief, even supposing the original Message to have
been delivered in the clearest terms of which human

20 THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

language is capable, a situation is humanly speaking
bound to arise in which two rival schools of interpreta-
tion will wish to submit their differences, not to a
mere arbitration, but to competent judgement.
Since the written letter stands, judgement must be
pronounced by some person or body of persons con-
ceived as divinely commissioned to issue a decision.
Divinely commissioned, because a mere consensus
theologorum — and a consensus of this kind is not
easily arrived at — would not be accepted by the losing
side, who would plead that if the matter were purely
one of intellectual conviction, their own failure to see
eye to eye with the pundits could not fairly be held to
disqualify them for communion. It is unnecessary to
elaborate historical instances which illustrate this
tendency on the part of every body to appeal to some
sort of authority, however vaguely it may in some
cases be conceived : probably only very new religious
bodies, such as the Irvingites or the Christian Scientists,
have escaped such difficulties.

21. Whatever therefore be avowed as the ground of
belief, the definient authority from time to time must be a
living voice.

It is perfectly possible for a man, asked why he
believes this or that, to say, " Because the Bible says
so." His Bible or Koran may be the ground of his
faith. But if he be challenged with the question, Why
do you believe this rather than that, when the Bible
seems to admit of two possible interpretations ? he
must appeal to some living voice which has, however
vaguely, denned the doctrine in question. This is
presumably the substratum of meaning which under-
lies the very misleading catchword, " The Church to

THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY 21

teach and the Bible to prove.' ' Whether, in this case,
the definient authority does not become also the ulti-
mate authority, is a difficult question, but does not
concern us here ; it is enough for our purposes that any
religious body may be forced, and must be prepared to
be forced, to produce an authority for what it holds
in common, even on questions of morality : this will
probably be the fate of most religious bodies soon on
the cardinal problem of the dissolubility or indissolu-
bility of the marriage tie.

22. The principle of One Man One Vote does not solve the
problem of authority.

However excellent the purely democratic principle
may be in a country or in a fictitious institution such
as a club — the principle, that is, of counting heads to
avoid breaking them — a " poll of the members "
does not seem to be an expedient often adopted by
religious bodies. The reason is not difficult to find.
A majority may have a right to decide on a purely
practical point — e.g. whether seats should be free or
rented — in matters where only the well-being of the
body as a human society is concerned. But if the
problem be, not to arrive at the will of the society,
but to arrive at the will of God, it is not to be wondered
at if an appeal to the vote leaves the minority uncon-
vinced and prepared for schism. " They are slaves who
dare not be in the right with two or three.' ' We have
no divine guarantee that the voice of the people will
be the voice of God : rather, we must be prepared to
expect that in any society which is not violently
rigorist, the majority will be largely composed of people
whose spiritual insight is not of the keenest.

22 THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

23. A variation of the popular principle — the Conciliar
theory.

There is, however, a variation of this theory which,
discredited as it is now, appears to have commended
itself to solid thinkers — the Tractarians. This is the
pure Conciliar theory, according to which certain
representatives of the body, meeting in conclave, were
actually prevented by the overruling influence of God
from arriving at a false conclusion. Such a body is
not representative in the strict sense ; for even if all the
members of it had been popularly elected, it was still
not in virtue of their election, but in virtue of a special
gift ab extra that they were preserved from error. The
difficulty of this doctrine is twofold.

24. Difficulties of the pure Conciliar theory.

(1) It does not seem to be claimed by any tradition
of the Church that our Saviour himself attached any
promise of infallibility to such gatherings. Nor does
the Church seem to have acted on the understanding
that a decision of this kind was necessarily final.
There were still Judaizers after the Council of Jerusa-
lem in communion with Christians who rejected their
views, though the tendency to sever communion was
constant. Further, Irenaeus knew well enough who
were heretics and who were Catholics at a time when
there had been no ecumenical council since that of
Jerusalem : are we to suppose that infallibility resides
equally in each of a number of local synods ?

(2) We should surely have expected that, if this
miraculous guidance was to be bestowed, there would
always be an overwhelming majority in favour of the
right side, if not complete unanimity. Yet we see

THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY 23

that at various periods rival doctrines could claim very
nearly the same number of upholders among the
Bishops.

25. A more modern Conciliar view.

The Conciliar doctrine therefore seems to have
undergone an amendment in recent times, and the
decisions of the Councils are now claimed as binding
(or something like it) not on the ground that the
Councils were directly inspired, but on the ground
that the Church, by no sudden show of hands, but by
slow processes of assimilation and rejection, came to
hold one view or the other, and so ratified the decree.
Such a view can at least claim texts such as " He shall
guide you into all truth/' "All thy people shall be
taught of God," etc. And it does not seem difficult
to suppose that God has implanted in the hearts of
those who endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit
an infallible tendency towards, or instinct for the truth,
which, like the red corpuscles of a healthy body,
ejects naturally the invasions of alien doctrine. Such
a view is also very comfortable at the present day.
For, if we are prepared to look upon the ecclesiastical
history of the last four hundred years as an interlude,
and to call by the name of Christian all those who
seriously claim the title, we can console ourselves with
the hope that perhaps after all the questions raised
at and since the Reformation are only specially
gristly mouthfuls, which the Church is slowly taking
her time to digest ; nothing is settled as yet, but being
all Churchmen we shall inevitably, in the end, come to
see things in the same light. Probably this view is
held, in one form or another, by almost all Christians

24 THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

outside the Roman and Eastern churches who are
seriously exercised about the question of Church unity
and Church authority.

26. This view seems to put us back where we were before.

This doctrine, in the form in which it has become
popular among Nonconformists and laxiorist Angli-
cans, is destructive of the whole principle of a visible
Church or an audible authority. For, if we believe
what we believe about the Trinity, not in obedience
to formulas laid down at Nicea and elsewhere but
because " Christians " have in course of time come
to believe such doctrines, and found them suited to
their religious needs — then we must be prepared to
revise those beliefs in conformity with wrhat " Chris-
tians " are coming to believe or may come to believe
about the Divine Nature, fortified now by methods of
criticism wholly different from those of the Fathers.
Nothing has been defined, nothing ever will be. The
" churches " are but a number of philosophical sects
within " the Church," holding various but equally
tenable opinions on almost all points — whether the
Unitarians are to be counted among these, and if not,
why not, seems at least a legitimate speculation.
Anybody is at liberty to revive the principles of the
Agapemonites without forfeiting his title to Christian
membership. The One Visible Church, if it ever
existed, only survived by a few years its Divine
Founder, and can expect a renascence only in the
remote future, when prayerful application to historical
documents shall have produced a basis which we all
feel conscientiously bound to accept,

THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY 25

27. A refinement of this doctrine seems to confound its
own supporters.

There is, however, a refinement of this doctrine
commonly held among more rigorist Anglicans. Ac-
cording to this view, although the Church does make
up its mind, not by sudden Conciliar illumination, but
by a gradual process of assimilation, yet the doctrines
once so assimilated have become " defined," and
therefore irreversible (however much they may admit
of interpretation) . The Church may make up her mind,
centuries hence, on such a point as the withholding of
the Chalice, or (from their point of view) the Immacu-
late Conception, but what has once been sealed, in
the early ages, is sealed for ever — e.g. the marriage
laws, the three Creeds, the three orders of the ministry,
at least two Sacraments, etc. Since the schism
between the East and the West the Church has been
unable to formulate any opinion which " counts,"
seeing that she has been divided.

But we must press for an answer — Do we hold such
and such doctrines to be of faith because the Church has
come to believe them, or because they have been
defined by Councils ? If the former, then what right
have we to assume that the Church has finally made
up her mind on (say) the doctrine of the Trinity ?
Why should the process of doctrinal development have
petrified ? How are we to distinguish between kernel
and husk, between what in traditional belief is part
of the depositum fidei and what is merely accidental
and suited to the needs of an age ? We fall back once
more on private opinion to determine this, which it
does with no certain sound. If on the other hand we
say that the Councils are the defining voice, but we
accept them not in so far as they spoke in the heat of

26 THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

controversy, but in so far as they registered beliefs
which by their time had become unquestioned : if,
that is to say, the controversy on circumcision was
really settled at Nicea, and the controversy on Arianism
at Constantinople, and so on — then indeed we avoid
all sceptical difficulties about " snap votes," " undue
influence," and the like, but are we really better off ?
There still remains the objection that we have no
proof that a majority can define a generally accepted
doctrine, any more than decide a controversy, with the
assurance of Divine ratification.

28. We are, in fact, still left with a circular argument, or
a bare confidence in numbers.

In fact, whether it be the continuous history of the
Councils, or the continuous history of the Church at
large, to which we appeal when we say that this or
that doctrine is irreversible, we are still arguing in a
circle. Asked what is the Orthodox Faith, we say,
" What was and is believed by the Orthodox Church."
Pressed as to what the Orthodox Church may be, we
fall back on defining it as the body which holds the
Orthodox Faith. And if all the Episcopal Churches
of the world were re-united to-morrow, and had a
schism the day after, we should be reduced to voting
with the majority : this view is supported by n pre-
lates— Dieu le veult ; that view is supported by #-i
prelates — AS. And even then we should have to
admit sadly that it was left for our grandchildren to
know which party was in the right.

29. Logical outcome of the Divided Church theory.

If anybody is disposed to rest content with the view
that all appeals for authority should be made to the

THE ESSENTIALS OE SPIRITUAL UNITY 2?

early and united Church, or at best to a consensus of
opinion between the Church of Rome and the Orthodox
Churches of the East, he has still to face this difficulty
— namely, that if such an appeal be made by either
means to an undivided Church on the question, Can
the true Church of Christ lack the signs of visible
unity and union ? the answer would surely be an
unanimous chorus of " No." In which case we are
confronted with an authority which does not even
believe in itself.

30. Logical outcome of the bare majority theory.

If on the other hand we are disposed to treat the
schism between East and West on a line with all other
schisms, and say that the fragments it left constitute
(i) a true Church and (ii) a schismatic body : then,
whatever the precise numerical proportion of bishops,
it is difficult not to feel that the West has it, as repre-
senting more different countries, more active thought,
more vigorous life. And we are thrown back on a
merely platonic Gallicanism, which (however) insists
that the bishops of the Roman communion met in
council are infallible : and if we admit that, then in
obedience to them we must admit the whole Roman
claim.

31. Logical outcome of pure comemusfideliumism.

Nor do we escape the impasse by appealing from
episcopal councils to the general sense of the great
body of Christian people. For the great body of
Christian people, unless we are prepared to suppose
that anyone who now claims the title of Christian is
necessarily a member of it, must in some way be

28 THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

defined, and the only conceivable definitions of it (if
we are taking our stand on historic continuity with the
sub-Apostolic Church) would be (i) the Church of
Rome or (ii) the Orthodox Churches of the East. Not
both at once, for the faithful of either rite disown the
company of the other. Here again, if we set aside the
kudos which, since the division, has accrued to the
Orthodox Church through the rise of the political
power of Russia, could any casual observer fail to
find the true fideles in the communion of Rome —
more especially when we remember how intimately
the doctrines of the Greek Church seem to have been
bound up with those of the reigning Emperor, long
after the Church in the West had become, corporately
at any rate, independent of such influences ?

32. Especial claim to a hearing of the Roman Church if
we take the consensus fideliwn basis.

The salient difficulty of any consensus fidelium
theory is surely this, that if the test is to be a real test
the term " fideles " must have a definite meaning in
extension. And while we look in vain for any other
definition of their extent which will not be a merely
circular definition, the Roman Catholic has a ready
answer : " The fideles, be they many or few, be their
doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innova-
tory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are
simply those who are in visible communion with the
see of Rome." No doubt in the long run this means
the people who are so orthodox that Rome has seen
no reason to excommunicate them, so that unity and
orthodoxy still react upon one another : but the fact
remains that the Roman theory does give a test for
defining the fideles without the question-begging pre-

THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNiTY 29

liminary of ascertaining who the fideles are, from an
examination of their tenets. And in fact there can be
little doubt that in the West our labelling of this party
as orthodox and that as heterodox in early Church
history comes down to us from authors who were
applying this test of orthodoxy and no other, and that
we, at the Reformation, made our appeal (in so far as
we did make any appeal) to the Churches of Jerusalem
and Alexandria, meaning thereby not the Nestorian
or Monophysite claimants to these sees, but the
representatives of the body (hence admitted as
" Orthodox ") which had remained longest in com-
munion with the Roman Church.

33. The difficulties of principle, which produce these
logical results, investigated.

All Conciliar theories of the Church (except those
which at once fix an arbitrary limit to the number
of the Councils, neglect the question, " Whence do the
Councils derive their authority ? " and apparently
blind themselves to historical phenomena) seem on
examination to labour from a single root defect — they
attempt to define the Church by the Faith, not the
Faith by the Church. They posit the faith as a known
quantity : it may be simply the Swanwick test, belief
that Jesus is God : it may be the doctrines (roughly
speaking) of the Judicious Hooker : it may be the
Council of Trent : it may be anything betwixt and
between. But in any case you posit the faith as a
known thing, defining it by an arbitrary standard,
and then say, " Who are there who believe these
doctrines ? They are my brothers/' True, you may
insist, in questions like that of Ordinations, that the
faith shall be attested by corresponding ecclesiastical

30 THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

practice, and even that this practice can show con-
tinuity (what of the Swedish Church, for instance ?),
but in any case you assume that Catholicity is some-
thing that you instinctively know, and can apply as
a test to any religious body you examine. By this
means you accept the Greek " Orthodox " and the
Old Catholics, while you reject the Nestorians and the
Presbyterians. For this is (except on the narrow
Conciliar view above described) what you are doing
when you speak of " orthodox " and " heretical "
tenets in Early Church history. But how, apart from
pure Bibliolatry or miraculous revelation, are we to
know what is the minimum of belief and practice that
can be called Orthodox, unless we have One visible
and continuous Church to teach us on the point ?
How much more satisfactory, if the Church were a
body which leapt to the eye, self-credentialled, so
that we could posit it for our starting-point and
infer from its teaching what was true and what was
false !

34. If there were a single Church, designed to be the
standard of the Faith (and not vice versa), how should we
expect it to be constituted ?

It may be following an idle fancy, but it is surely not
altogether presumptuous, to blot out history as far as
possible from the mind's eye, and imagine how we
should expect the one, indivisible Church to be con-
stituted, so as to be a safe guardian of the Faith.

We should expect that either a single body of men,
kept in close touch with one another and divinely
guaranteed against serious doctrinal disagreement, or
(better still) a single man, since in the last resort it is
the casting vote that counts, would be selected from

THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY 31

among the immediate followers of the Founder, who
in the last resort would be the safe camp to pitch your
tent under. Let us suppose a single man. We should
expect that such a man would be open to advice, even
(if he seemed to be hesitating in following his con-
science) to reproof from the highest officials round him.
That, as the first missionary work was done, while the
Founder's words were still fresh in men's ears, and
his chosen disciples yet alive, little recourse would be
had to such a man, or indeed be geographically
possible. That while disagreements would be few, in
that blessed sunrise (except perhaps in connexion
with some who from the first had misconceived the
scope of the whole enterprise) these disagreements
would be dealt with locally, on their own authority,
by other officials who saw their duty clearly : that
the malcontents in these cases would attempt to plead
the authority of the absent X (let us call him) and that
the official they were opposing would (while insisting
on his own exceptional knowledge of the Founder's
intentions) be occasionally at pains to show that his
views did not differ from — perhaps even were instru-
mental in forming — the views of X. That X would
be divinely guided to make the headquarters sooner
or later at Y, the most prominent or most central city
of the then known world, where he would very likely
be associated for missionary purposes with that official
whose task it had been to organize most of the churches
on the way to Y from their original starting-point,
and that the churches more immediately under the
care of this official (Z) would be in close contact with
the Church at Y. And now, what happens at X's
death ?

32 THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

35. Transmission of the centralized authority.

We might think it probable that X would nominate
and solemnly appoint his own successor, guided in
his choice by the same infallible assurance which would
make it impossible that he should take the wrong side
in a doctrinal dispute. But this is to assume that the
gift which makes him what he is is a sort of habitual
grace, which can only be conferred by him who
already possesses it. If, on the contrary, the gift were
rather in the nature of an actual grace, conferred
according to a covenant on condition of his holding a
certain position, but not in and through the act of his
elevation to that position, then the appointment might
be left to others. Not, in such geographical conditions,
it is evident, to the whole Church. The appointment
can safely be made in such conditions and by such
electors as would be common in the ordinary election
of the officials of the body in local cases ; for the gift
which determines his special character being a charisma,
which overrules (presumably) any natural tendencies
in the man which would unfit him for his special office,
could be bestowed on any candidate thus appointed,
even were he not " the best man in." It would not be
unnatural to suppose, in fact, that the providential
character would be conferred on the man whom the
Church at Y selected as its head (the bishop, let us call
him) : they elect and enthrone him, and God immedi-
ately bestows ab extra the special grace needed for a
special position.

[There are other ways, clearly, in which the thing
might be managed, but in the absence of a claim on the
part of any other succession of persons to a Caliphate
of this description, this way of managing it would seem
a very natural one.]

THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY 33

36. Early centrifugal influences to be expected.

We should expect that while the congregations in
various parts were poor, scattered, and persecuted,
there should be little intercourse between the Church
at Y and those elsewhere (although it would naturally
be mentioned with some deference, when mentioned
at all). That the Church, rather than the Bishop,
would be the object of respectful allusion, since (i) his
power derived from his position, (2) the local Church
was more of a distinct unit when converts were few,
(3) the Bishop himself would be likely to live in some
obscurity, owing to his exposed position in times of
persecution. That we should not find him interfering
in the affairs of other churches except those within
a fairly easy radius by sea. That when local quarrels
arose, they should be settled by local councils, espe-
cially while men were alive who had had speech with
the immediate followers of the Founder — it would
rather be the innovators who would seek, and would
fail to find, recognition of their doctrines at Y. That
old-established or central congregations would natur-
ally come to exercise a sort of local satrapy over other
congregations around them. That bishops of great
learning, or such as had showed great courage in perse-
cution or sanctity of life, would be more prominent
to the ordinary eye than an official living at
a distance. That minor differences of usage would
crop up between various churches, that Y would
become involved in them, and that Y's first attempts
to make regulations of ecumenic force would be re-
sented, and that recriminations would come from both
sides where matters of old-established usage were
concerned. That if the Bishop of Y seemed to be
exercising his presidential prerogative with undue

34 THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

assertiveness, he would be remonstrated with in
impatient language. That he, as having the interests
of a wider community at heart, would take a gentler
and a less rigorist view on matters of discipline than
the officials of outlying churches.

37. Effects of State recognition on the Churches.

If it should so fall out, that the chief temporal
power in the world should come into the hands of one
who was at least sympathetic with, if not actually
committed to the principles of this Church, he would
naturally be concerned with the settlement of any dis-
putes that might arise ; in the case of a considerable
dispute, it would be he who would facilitate the travels
of officials from distant parts to a single centre, and
be present at the discussion in the person of his repre-
sentatives to secure " a free field and no favour " in
times when bluntness of speech and hastiness of temper
were not unknown in high ecclesiastical circles. If the
Bishop of Y should, in virtue of the importance of his
see, be unable to be present in person, it is possible
that his legates would not occupy the chairman's
place, which would be given (no doubt with the Bishop
of Y's sanction) to another bishop of high standing.

Human nature being what it is, it is only natural
that this temporal authority should at times be
wielded by persons who attempted to exercise a
direct influence on the councils of the Church ; by
intriguing for the appointment of this or that candi-
date for vacant sees, by " summoning " councils in
unrepresentative geographical conditions, etc. Owing
to the force of the secular arm, the candidate favoured
by such a ruler in a given case would be likely to gain
the temporalities of the see, and the dispossessed

THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY 35

candidate, were he right or wrong in his views, would
appeal from this secular compulsion to the Bishop of
Y. The secular ruler would therefore make every
effort to influence the views of the Bishop of Y ; would,
in an extreme case, persecute him, and try to wring
from him a decision against his conscience. If and
in so far as such a decision should be given under the
influence of (i) physical force or (ii) insufficient in-
formation, or a combination of the two, then it would
be right for those who looked to Y for guidance to
stick to his previous and uninfluenced judgements,
rather than to any extorted profession, as the norm
of right belief.

If the secular authority should build a second city,
intended to outstrip Y in dignity, it would be natural
that the Bishop of this new city (C) should, if worldly-
minded or ambitious, try to set himself up as in some
way on a level with the Bishop of Y. If the secular
empire should then be divided between Y and C, the
Emperor of C would be all the more inclined to support
the Bishop of C in such pretensions. The bishops of
churches nearer C than Y, accustomed to rally round
the Bishop of C as their patriarch, might easily come
to be more overshadowed in practice (without justifica-
tion in theory) by the Church at C than by the Church
at Y ; and law-abiding citizens, in the event of a schism
in the Church at C, might be tempted to support the
candidate backed by the Emperor of C, without
troubling much to enquire which candidate was sup-
ported by the Bishop of Y. This process, though con-
trary to the original intentions of the Founder, would
take place by insensible stages and largely without
conscious revolt : only at times of open breach
between the Bishop of Y and the Emperor of C would

36 THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITY

the case definitely present itself to the conscience —
Is it to be God or Caesar ? For so long as, and in so
far as, the churches accustomed to look to C for a
lead were united by the unity of faith with the Bishop
of Y, they would be rightly called " orthodox " ; but
at whatever periods they supported the Bishop of C
against the Bishop of Y they would be formally dis-
obedient, with whatever excuse of deficient informa-
tion, etc. : if at any time a definite and formal breach
took place, the party however large or important,
which sided against Y, would be guilty of formal
schism. And however faithfully henceforward they
guarded the deposit common to the Churches of C and
of Y, they would nevertheless be cut off from the unity
of the Church.

FEINTED ANU PUBLISH*© BY 1 HE CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY, LONDON.

B. — February , 1918.

awnswuim^Hi^;;;;:;;